Over the last twenty years, large-scale planting of Eucalyptus,
as a fast growing exotic, has occurred in India, as part of a
drive to reforest the subcontinent, and create an adequate supply
of fuel and timber for rural communities under the augur of
social forestry. Initially in response to the
international communitys consternation regarding
deforestation, social forestry was, in its early days, largely a
product of development aid (Sargent, 1998). The ambitious scheme
intensified, particularly in the 1980s when plantations
were established at a rate of 1.4 million hectares (Mha) a year (Hall
and Ravindranath, 1994) to existing plantations of about 1.5
million hectares (Prabhakar, 1998). Estimates of total land area
currently under plantations exceed 17 Mha. Over $400 million has
been invested (Poffenberger, 1990, cited in Morrison and Bass,
1998) from the Indian government, and with assistance from
international financial institutions such as the World Bank.

The preference for Eucalyptus given rise to a highly
polemical debate, particularly between environmentalists and
foresters / policy makers. Foresters maintain that Eucalyptus
can help meet increasing wood demands from dwindling natural
forests, supplying local communities and industry alike (Shyam
Sunder and Parameswarappa, 1989). Environmentalists, however, are
opposed to Eucalyptus due to perceived ecological hazards
and the charge that the choice of species is fundamentally flawed;
that Eucalyptus is ill equipped to serve the variety of
diverse end uses demanded of tree species in India for community
use.

This review will examine available literature to assess the
validity of claims from both sides. Initially, a brief overview
of social forestry will be followed by claims of the ecological
hazards of Eucalyptus, and a discussion assessing specific
claims. Next, an examination of the establishment of Eucalyptus
plantations will be considered, with particular reference to
choices made from the bottom up. Case studies from
different parts of India will be used to illustrate the argument,
and give breadth and insight as to how this exotic has been
received by different communities, differentiated by socio-economic
factors, and geographical features, such as climate. Lastly, a
broader discussion, encompassing the political economy of Eucalyptus
and its context as part of a particular development trajectory
will be considered, and wider criticisms will be revisited.

Despite a drive for modernisation and industrialisation, and
growing urbanisation, India maintains a largely biomass-dependent
rural sector. Out of the 1991 population census, where the
population was found to be about 850 million, over 600 million
live in rural areas, and are dependent on forest resources to
varying degrees. With little to suggest that this scenario will
change in the near future, and a growing population, it is
imperative that local biomass needs are met. Forest area per
capita is extremely low, at 0.075ha, and is likely to reduce
further, on account of a growing population, and increased
degradation of natural forests from industrial, developmental and
subsistence demands.

Changes in forest cover have been extrapolated by different
workers, and wide discrepancies are evident. FAO, (1993)
estimated deforestation rate of 339,000 ha year-1,
between 1981-1990, while Hall and Ravindranath (1994), observing
changes in forest cover from satellite images in the same period,
note an annual decline in forest cover of 23 750 ha (0.04%).
However, Hall and Ravindranath also extrapolate from satellite
data in the same period, a year on year increase in dense tree
cover of 302,000 ha (0.8%), considered as areas of forest with
tree-crown cover greater than 40%. During the 1980s, Indias
forest area stabilised around 64 Mha (19.5 of the total
geographic area). According to FAO, however, land under forest in
India is estimated at a greater 70.6 Mha, of which 18.9 Mha is
estimated to be under plantations. Hall and Ravindranath do not
give estimates for plantations, though assuming similar
proportions, plantations occur over 17 Mha, with 14.4 Mha being
established between 1981 and 1990 (Hall and Ravindranath, 1994).

Large-scale afforestation during the 1980s reflects
radical policy and management changes. Recently, the government
has formally recognised the legitimacy of local communities
claims to forest resources, and in a turn-about of forest policy,
is now encouraging rural participation in the management of
natural resources. Social forestry represents one strategy to
involve community participation, as part of a drive towards
afforestation, and provides for the rehabilitation of degraded
forest and common lands, with the planting of species such as Eucalyptus
spp., and Acacia spp. Farm forestry, encouraging trees
to be grown on private land, and extension forestry, increasing
areas under trees, are also provided for, and laid down in the
National Commission on Agriculture. Box 1, below, lists the scope
of social forestry, with the potential areas that could be
brought into the scheme.

Box 1: The scope of social forestry
(after Prabhakar, 1998)

Creation of woodlots in the village commonlands,
government wastelands and panchayat lands. (Estimated
at least 12mha).

Planting of trees on the sides of roads, canals
and railways. This, along with planting on
wastelands is known as extension
forestry, increasing the boundaries of forests. (Estimated
at nearly 1 million ha).

Afforestation of degraded government forests in
close proximity to villages, which have
experienced the unauthorised harvesting of
biomass. (Estimated at over 10mha).

Planting of trees on and around agricultural
boundaries, and on marginal, private lands,
constituting farm forestry, or agro-forestry, in
combination with agricultural crops. (Agricultural
land covers about 143mha)

Social forestry, then, has shown enormous potential to kick-start
a mass afforestation programme on the subcontinent, and indeed,
as noted earlier, already appears to be making a considerable
difference in overall forest cover in a short time, most probably
due to the vigour and productivity of the exotics employed. The
principal species used in afforestation is a eucalyptus hybrid, Eucalyptus
tereticornis, though E.globulus has also been employed.

Eucalyptus globulus was first introduced to India in
1843 in the Nilgiri Hills, as an experiment to find high yielding
species for fuel and timber (Penfold and Willis, 1961), and it
soon became a favoured species of the colonial rulers. However,
after trials on the Mysore Plateau, E. tereticornis was
found to be more productive, and the hybrid became the most
popular choice for afforestation.

Despite the enthusiasm with which eucalyptus has been received
and promoted by policy makers and forest department officials
alike, its large-scale establishment in India since the early
1980s has invoked passioned criticism from
environmentalists, social activists and some NGOs. Perhaps
most vocal in the condemnation of eucalyptus is the
environmentalist and writer, Vandana Shiva. In a series of
articles in the mid 1980s featured in publications such as Ecologist,Ambio, and followed with an ecological audit
of the species, Shiva charges eucalyptus with nothing less than
ecological fascism. Although also criticised on political and
socio-economic grounds, Shiva roundly destroys the case for Eucalyptus
in India on scientific and ecological grounds. Charges laid
against E. tereticornis particularly, are as follows:

Eucalyptus is water intensive, and reduces water
available for other species, effectively out-competing
them. Shiva follows that in arid areas, the consequent
suppression of other plant life, coupled with a high
water demand, reduces soil moisture, preventing the
recharge of groundwater, and can reduce local water
tables. This is exacerbated by a high transpiration rate
indicative of the inefficient use of water. Shiva
maintains that in vulnerable ecozones, such
as the Deccan Plateau, which is in the rain shadow of the
Western Ghats, the introduction of species with high
water demand will destroy the hydrological balance
of such areas, and contribute to increasing aridity, soil
erosion (Shiva, 1983) and eventual desertification (Shiva
and Bandyopadhyay, 1985). Particularly vulnerable are
arid areas with annual rates of precipitation that
correspond to the lower range of Eucalyptus demand,
about 700mm.

Eucalyptus is nutrient intensive, which creates
deficits for other plant life, a process that is
exacerbated by its low returns in leaf litter to the soil.
Thus it does not promote the building of humus, and by
implication, does not contribute to the long-term
fertility of the soil, as other species might (Shiva and
Bandyopadhyay, 1983) resulting in an over all nutrient
impoverishment of the soil (Shiva and Bandyopadhyay, 1985).

Eucalyptus is toxic, due to allelopathic
properties, which serve to reduce not only other plant
life, including crops, by restricting germination of
other species, but is also detrimental to soil micro and
macrofauna. (Shiva and Bandyopadhyay, 1985).

Regarding the claims concerning Eucalyptus and water,
as listed in 1, it might be instructive to compare water use by Eucalyptus,
with native Indian tree species, to see if it has a higher demand
per unit of biomass fixed. According to experiments undertaken at
the Forest Research Laboratory, Kanpur, Eucalyptus
actually appears to be more efficient in water use than other
useful native trees. The study showed that Eucalyptus
consumed 0.48 litres of water to produce a gram of wood, compared
to 0.55, 0.77, 0.50 and 0.88 litre per gram for siris, shisham,
jamun and kanji respectively (Prabhakar, 1998). However, that
said, the reason why Eucalyptus was introduced as an
exotic to the subcontinent, is because of its rapid growth and
productivity. In one year, total biomass produced is greater than
many of the slower growing native species. Prabhakar (1998),
claims that on eight year rotation, the mean annual growth of Eucalyptus
per hectare, is about 8 cubic metres (cu.m.), though has been
known to reach as much as 40 cu.m, while for indigenous trees,
the average is 0.50 cu.m. An overall high productivity therefore
necessitates a greater overall water demand. Another study, cited
in Saxena (1994), supports this supposition. Chaturvedi, Sharma
and Shrivastava (1988) report that of ten species tested for
water consumption (it is not known whether the others were native
or exotic), E. tereticornis was found to be the most
efficient in biomass production per litre of water consumed, but
also found to consume most water overall, given its high
productivity. Under the regime within which Eucalyptus is
cultivated; en masse, as a short rotation crop, though sometimes
as coppice with standards (Sagreiya, 1967), parallels may be
drawn with any other intensively produced crop, such as a modern
high-yielding variety.

Eucalyptus, then, has been shown to be efficient in its
water use. However, this genus has also been criticised by Shiva
for a high rate of transpiration, and possible contribution to
water shortages in arid areas. Prabhakar (1998), notes that
transpiration of Eucalyptus is high under conditions of
high soil moisture, termed luxury consumption, and
under conditions of water stress, stomatal closure occurs, which
restricts water loss from the plant. Yet, there does appear to be
an extreme threshold before the onset of stomatal closure. Pryor
(1976) states that severe permanent wilting will trigger stomatal
closure, as part of a strategy to endure a critical water balance,
which can last for some time. This strategy is possible due to
the development of hard tissue, called the sclerenchyma, and
plants that adopt such a strategy are known as sclerophytes.
Pryor notes that Eucalyptus has an ability to
extract water from the soil even though soil moisture tension is
higher than that at which more mesophytic plants can extract
water. Transpiration rates remain high even though water supply
from the soil is dwindling. How this may affect soil
conditions in a large area planted under Eucalyptus over
time is not certain, and no literature could be found on this
point. Though Edgar (1984), in a book about Eucalyptus for
wood production, describes an increase in water yields after
clearcutting an area of Eucalyptus plantation,
attributable to reduced transpiration losses. Greenwood, Klein
and Beresford (1985), cited in Sargent (1998), measured and
compared transpiration from two species of Eucalyptus, and
grassland, and annual average transpiration rates were found to
be 2700 mm and 390 mm respectively. However, another study in
Kanowski and Saville (1990), indicate that plantations of E.
tereticornis and E. camaldulensis use no greater
quantity of water than degraded indigenous forest on adjacent
sites.

Locally, perhaps plantations are able to modify the
hydrological budget, though whether this could significantly
reduce the water table, seems a shaky proposition. Sargent (1998)
concedes there is a likelihood of drought potential from fast
growing plantations of Eucalyptus, notably E. camaldulensis
in areas where plantations ameliorate peak flows, and where there
are down-stream water shortages. Shiva is certainly articulating
fears and concerns at grassroots with this specific charge. In
some communities, the establishment of Eucalyptus
plantations has coincided with a drop in the water table. In
August 1983, farmers from two villages in the Tumkar district of
Karnataka, south India, led a symbolic protest to a nursery,
where Eucalyptus seedlings were uprooted and replaced with
indigenous species, such as tamarind (Tamarindus indica) and
mango, (Mangifera indica). According to the villagers, the local
plantation was sited in the catchment area of the streams feeding
their agricultural land, which had recently dried up (Shiva and
Bandyopadhyay, 1985). Others have made the pertinent point that
the water table has reduced in many regions of India in recent
years, both in areas with and without plantations, which may be
due to over extraction of ground water, and aggravated by factors
such as deforestation (Karanth, 1983).

Shiva hypothesised that the knock-on effects of this mechanism
(in arid areas) would serve to increase aridity, increase the
hedgemony of Eucalyptus in an area, as a superior
competitor for scarce water, at the expense of other species,
which could ultimately result in desertification. In some
instances, which will be discussed later, Eucalyptus may
impact detrimentally on surrounding vegetation, but this is more
a function of qualities other than water use. That Eucalyptus is
a xerophyte, which renders the genus resilience to withstand
drought stress, indicates an ingenious and specialist strategy,
in a harsh and sparsely vegetated environment rather than a
fascist design to suppress other species. Indeed, in Portugal, E.
tereticornis is the species of choice in arid and semi-arid areas,
where precipitation is about 400-500 mm per year, due to its
drought tolerance over other species, including other Eucalyptus
species. Fifteen years on, there seems to be no evidence of large-scale
erosion and desertification due to Eucalyptus plantations
(erosion will be specifically addressed later). However, what
must also be remembered is that ultimately, any manipulated
system will only be as viable and sustainable as the management
regime (including intensity) supporting it. This perhaps is given
more resonance in areas of climatic instability, specifically
regarding cultivation. In arid areas where large-scale and
intensive agriculture has been attempted, significant degradation
has been known to have occurred, the dustbowl, in the
U.S. during the 1930s, is a case in point.

To briefly summarise the discussion regarding Eucalyptus
and water. Contrary to Shivas charges, Eucalyptus is
efficient in its water use, though transpiration rates are high,
which may modify local-level hydrology. The claim that
plantations may lead to desertification is not substantiated,
though ultimately such a process is more concerned with human
agency, rather than an intrinsic feature of the genus.

Shiva claims Eucalyptuscan undermine the
biological productivity of arid regions, by its excessive
nutrient demand, which creates deficits for other plant life. A
small return of litter to the forest floor and poor humus
building consequently reduces fertility, which results in the
overall impoverishment of the soil. Shiva cites a study of Singh,
(1984), where the nutrient demand by E. tereticornis was
found to be 217 kg of nitrogen, 100 kg of phosphorous, and 1594
kg of calcium per hectare per year. The nutrient demand by Eucalyptus
seems well established in literature. Even in the nutrient
poor soils of Australia, Attiwell (1972), followed the
distribution and movement of nutrients within a forest of E.
obliqua, and found demand for phosphorous, calcium and
potassium per hectare, per year, to be 36 kg, 400 kg, and 272 kg
respectively.

Although Eucalyptus can complete their life cycle on sites of
very low nutrient status, Pryor (1976) notes the genus retains
the ability to respond favourably to improved nutritional status,
and when introduced to an environment with higher nutrient levels,
particularly nitrogen and phosphorous, there is a marked response
of increased vigour, and productivity. Therefore, as with any
cultivated crop, productivity is largely dependent on its access
to nutrients.

That is not to say that as a genus, Eucalyptus is
intensive in its nutrient demand. Hillis and Brown (1984),
comment that compared to most other genera in Australia grown on
short rotation, demand for nutrients by Eucalyptus is less
than others, principally because heart-wood begins to form at
approximately five years. After this point, a significant
proportion of nutrients in wood is recycled to other parts of the
tree or soil, and the quantities that are immobilised are kept to
a minimum. Therefore, similar to its water uptake, Eucalyptus
is efficient in its nutrient use. However, its notable
productivity, but more notably, the management regime in which it
is cultivated, grown en masse, in short rotations of between six
to eight years, may render a nutrient deficit in areas that are
not conducive to intensive cultivation, such as arid and semi-arid
regions. Returning to Attiwells (1972) study, it was shown
that under regimes of intensive wood production, a high
proportion of the phosphorous in the biomass of E. obliqua, 60%
is likely to be transported off-site, as it is found in the
harvested stem wood and bark.

The findings of an FAO bulletin (1988) mentioned by Saxena, (1994)
concludes the following: the rapid depletion of the reserve
of nutrients in the soil due to cropping of Eucalyptus on
short rotation is a direct consequence of their rapid growth.
The clear implication in the preceding quote singularly lays the
blame for nutrient depletion in the productivity of Eucalyptus,
and not in the management regime. In other words, if the
exotics were not as productive, they would not be harvested in
short rotation. Yet it is a surreal notion to blame
the crop, and not the regime in which it is being cultivated;
Shiva also appears to mis-direct criticisms to perceived
attributes of the genus as a whole, rather than examine the role
of human agency.

Regarding the implications for soil fertility, Shiva explains
that nutrient deficits are due to its productivity in Indian
soils: In its native habitat in Australia, Eucalyptus
manages to sustain itself because it is not fast growing in its
sites of natural occurrence. Shiva maintains a decline in
soil fertility is exacerbated by low returns in leaf litter. E
tereticornis is noted for having a small crown, and so Shiva
equates a smaller return of leaflitter (compared to indigenous
trees) with a decline in soil fertility over time, as a
consequence of poor humus building. Drawing on Singhs (1984)
study, mentioned earlier, it was found that annual returns in
leaf litter were 35 kg for nitrogen, 14 kg for phosphorous, and
335 kg calcium, per hectare per year. Shiva details the severe
depletion of nutrients predicted after 20 years and two rotations,
which are listed as 3640 Kg for N, 1720 kg for P and 25,200 kg
for Ca. Shiva states: this nutrient deficit is the reason
for the "second rotation decline" in Eucalyptus
plantations, rather than considering the flip-side, that
the nutrient deficit has come about as a consequence of two
harvests. It is doubtful whether any cultivator would consider
harvesting two crops without any attempt at maintaining fertility,
either through natural or artificial means, as declining soil
fertility and yields are an inevitable consequence. Indeed, some
workers have warned that the intensive regime of very short
rotation cycles in monoculture plantations may cause a loss of
nutrients, and recommend that farmers increase the length of
rotations, as well as supplementing site fertility (Campbell and
Smith, 1987).

Shiva does not appear to consider plantations as artificial,
cultivated systems that require nutrient management. Moreover,
Shiva goes on to compare plantations with natural forests: while
most trees indigenous to a habitat form a self-sustaining system
of living resources, Eucalyptus plantations harvested at
short rotations are non-sustainable, without regard for the
circumstances and purpose of management. Mixed, indigenous
forests are not intentionally managed with such an intensive
regime (though, admittedly, they sometimes are).

The creation of humus, however, may be hindered by small
returns of leaflitter to the soil, as already discussed. What
little litter is returned to the soil may be slow to decompose.
As Eucalyptus is an exotic, there may well be a paucity of
associated soil micro and macro organisms that perform ecological
functions such as decomposition. Where Eucalyptus is
planted in arid areas, there may also be a less abundant
detritivore component, more as a function of climate.
Decomposition in such areas may be hindered by other factors also,
e.g., lack of humidity (Nagy and Macauley, 1982), or because of
the structural uniformity of the environment (Sargent, 1998). Low
returns to the soil may also be a consequence of biotic
disturbance. In some areas where natural forests are scarce, and Eucalyptus
has been planted as a remedial measure to provide biomass, leaves
are collected daily for fuel needs, and therefore do not remain
on the plantation floor (Karanth, 1983).

It seems unlikely that Eucalyptus is nutrient demanding to the
exclusion of other plant life. In many areas where Eucalyptus
plantations are established, they are done so precisely because
the genus may grow where other useful plants may not, such as in
areas of scarce water and poor nutrient status. Where a paucity
of ground cover has been observed under Eucalyptus, various
explanations have been offered, such as biotic disturbance (Karanth,
1983), dense planting of trees under short rotation, (Prabhakar,
1998), and allelopathic properties of Eucalyptus, which
will be considered next. However, it should also be noted here
that according to Attiwell, (1975), soils in undisturbed Eucalyptus
forests, (in Australia), are sometimes too nutrient poor to
adequately supply seedlings. In a productive E. obliqua forest,
Attiwell found so much of the phosphorous was taken up and cycled
within the stand of vegetation, there was insufficient in the
soil to promote a vigorous growth amongst the seedlings.
Nevertheless, Eucalyptus is the most popular choice to be
planted along the edges, or bunds, of agricultural fields, and
appears to be well incorporated and accepted in agro-forestry in
India (Tejwani, 1994).

Shiva also charges Eucalyptus with the ability to
augment erosion. As Sargent, (1998) comments, the presence of an
understorey and ground cover are critical determinants in
protecting the soil from erosion, particularly on slopes. However,
as already discussed, the absence of humus or detritus from the
plantation floor may be attributed to human agency, such as
management, e.g., dense planting, or the harvesting of leaves
from the floor. As Eucalyptus plantations are commonly
established in areas of degraded forest, as a matter of policy,
it is unlikely the taller architecture of the vegetation will
confer a vulnerability to erosion. More likely is that the
establishment of taller vegetation will provide additional
protective cover against wind and rain.

To sum up, Eucalyptus, like any other cultivated crop,
requires nutrients to maintain yield productivity, and soil
fertility. That Eucalyptus is inefficient in its nutrient
use and as a genus has qualities which serve to reduce soil
fertility, undermining the biological productivity of arid
regions, are not supported. Decomposition may be affected by Eucalyptus,
given its exotic status, and perhaps, climatic factors. Any
reduction in fertility in areas of Eucalyptus plantations, is a
consequence of the management regime, similar to any other
cultivated system, as is incidence of erosion.

Shiva and Bandyopadhyay, (1985) maintain that Eucalyptus
can jeopardise the biological productivity, principally of arid
regions due to allelopathic properties. In this way, the genus
has a deleterious effect not only other plant life, including
crops, by restricting germination of other species, but is also
detrimental to soil micro and macrofauna and.

Literature is generally supporting of the allelopathic
properties of Eucalyptus. However, whether allelopathy is found
in all species of the genus is not certain. Hillis and Brown (1984)
state there is evidence that some eucalypts are
allelopathic, citing a study of Ashton (1936), on E.
regnans.

Species that are allelopathic suppress their own progeny, and
by extension, other plant life, by the leaching of chemical
inhibitors from the trees litter or roots. Several studies
describe the adverse effects of Eucalyptus on crops in
India. Basu et al, 1987, Narwal, 1990, and Suresh and Vinai Rai,
1987 (in Saxena, 1994) all found E. tereticornis to reduce
the yield of rabi, when planted between fields. E.
tereticornis was found to have the highest allelopathic
affect.

However, allelopathy might be more marked in arid areas. Shiva
cites a study of Rao and Reddy (1984), where it was found that
allelopathic products in leaflitter remain for a long time in
regions of low rainfall. However, after rain, toxins were found
to be rapidly leached away. In other areas, such as the Doon
valley, where much forestry research is conducted, abundant
vegetation under Eucalyptus is commonly noted, in a region
of plentiful rain. Similarly, workers have noted regenerating
Atlantic forest, in the understorey of an E. grandis
plantation in Brazil, E. grandis therefore showing no
allelopathic effects on the re-colonising understorey (Claudio et
al, 1995).

Literature could not be found regarding deleterious effects on
soil fauna, though interestingly, in its native habitat,
allelopathy of Eucalyptus is sometimes increased by the
development of antagonistic soil microbes (Florence and Crocker,
1972, in Hillis and Brown, 1984).

Overall, some of Shivas criticisms are supported, but
many are not. Shiva appears to bestow sinister qualities on the
genus, without giving proper consideration of the role of human
agency. Any ecologically deleterious effects that may occur as a
consequence of large-scale Eucalyptus plantations, are not
the result of Eucalyptus design and physiology, rather it
is a problem that is human-induced, and is a matter of management.
The debate around Eucalyptus plantations, therefore, is more
political, than ecological, or scientific.

According to the FAO, recent estimate of land under forest in
India is thought to be 51.7 Mha and 18.9 Mha for natural forest
and plantations respectively. Plantations therefore account for
over 25% of the total forested area, of which Eucalyptus
is the most popular choice, though some other species are also
used, such as Cassia spp. and Acacia spp. 18.9 Mha
represents a considerable achievement in afforestation, which
reflects the Indian governments intent to provide forest
cover. Such a large afforestation must also be indicative of its
popularity amongst communities in the subcontinent. However, to
understand exactly how social forestry has been received, and how
effective Eucalyptus is at providing fuel and timber for
rural communities, its original remit, it would be worth drawing
on some studies from around the subcontinent.

Several studies have been conducted in the late 1980s
and 1990s in different parts of India. Here, four studies
will be considered, from Uttar Pradesh (U.P), in the north, West
Bengal and Orissa in the east and Karnataka in the south. Two
studies will be examined in some detail, (U.P and West Bengal);
the others will be used to highlight prominent features of social
forestry.

In the commercialised and agriculturally prosperous region of
the northwest, known as the green revolution belt of
India, Saxena (1992) surveyed four villages in 1989-90, regarding
uptake of social forestry. Traditionally in the fertile alluvial
plains of the northwest, trees were not an important component in
farming systems, unlike other parts of India, where they are used
to provide fuel, fodder and maintain fertility of the soil. In
the northwest, the high fertility of the land led to the
maximisation of area under crops. Fuel was traditionally supplied
from dung and agricultural residues rather than wood. When the
afforestation scheme was launched in the late 1970s and
early 1980s, it was expected that interest from private
farmers would be minimal, and therefore the focus in this area
was on the reforestation of common land, rather than farm
forestry. The state government had set an initial target for the
distribution of eight million seedlings to farmers in U.P,
between 1979-1984. However, 350 million seedlings were
distributed, due to an unexpected demand from farmers. It was
anticipated that 88% of the output from farm forestry would
consist of fuelwood, leaf and grass fodder to meet subsistence
demands of the rural community. The dominant choice of species,
though, was E. tereticornis, which accounted for 94% of
all the seedlings, distributed and was planted not just on
marginal land, and between fields, but also on fertile and
irrigated agricultural land, which replaced annual crops.
According to Saxena, E. tereticornis was favoured over
other species offered under the farm forestry scheme, as it was
perceived to be a highly marketable tree; it is quick growing,
taking only six years to mature, and grows straight, making it an
ideal choice for poles, but also for pulpwood. The small crown of
E. tereticornis also encouraged farmers to plant them
between fields, with little worry of shading crops in adjacent
areas.

Table 1, below, shows land ownership and trees planted by
different households. Out of the 1024 households considered in
this study, 394 were planters. From the table it can
be seen that 80% of the big farmers (>2.5 ha), 41% of the
small farmers (0.5-2.5 ha), and 24% of the tiny farmers (<0.5
ha), planted trees. However, the intensity of planting was
similar for the small and large farmers, reflecting a similar
willingness to uptake new techniques, in this region that is
known for its agrarian dynamism. Interestingly,
Saxena found that among the small and large farmers, more trees
were planted by upper caste households. Low caste households were
found not to plant proportionately to their land. It is likely
that the higher caste farmers are better educated, with closer
contacts to bureaucracy, better access to seedlings and extension,
and more likely to be in control of village institutions, which
can channel resources for their own benefit. The growing of Eucalyptus
was especially convenient to large absentee landowners, as there
was no danger of losing the crop from grazing, and seedlings were
easy to keep track of. However, small marginal farmers also found
it worthwhile to divert land for crops, which were known to fail
every two or three years, over to Eucalyptus. In this way,
poor farmers had an opportunity to generate an additional income
through wage labour. Instead of subsistence needs, then, the
agriculturally prosperous northwest of India, in keeping with the
commercial bias of region, used farm forestry for agrarian
capitalism.

In the eastern states of India, a different picture emerges.
The more humid and populous states of West Bengal and Orissa are
more subsistence than market oriented. An economist, Bardhan, (1982)
states: Output-raising investments in agriculture are
carried out less often in eastern than in north-western India
The ecology of densely populated monsoon paddy agriculture,
accompanied by agricultural involution, dwarf holdings and petty
landlordism (nurtured for long by the particular land tenure
under the colonial administration in this region) leaves the
generation of investible surplus per farm rather low.

In West Bengal, where the average size of landholdings is less
than 2.5 acres, Nesmith (1991) investigated the impact of social
forestry. In a study conducted in Midnapore, SE West Bengal, it
was found that participation in social forestry and its
associated benefits are mediated by class and gender. The West
Bengal Social Forestry Project (WBSFP) was initiated in 1981 with
financial assistance from the World Bank for 69% of the project
cost, or $29 million. According to the World Bank, the main
objectives of the project were to increase availability of
fuelwood to rural areas, along with the provision of non-timber
forest produce (NTFPs), such as fruit, fodder, etc
the main beneficiaries of which were termed the rural poor.

Nesmith studied 197 households in three villages, Bokulgram,
Rangpur, and Chandrapalli, which were composed of mixed castes
and tribes. Socio-economic status was calculated according to
landholdings, crop yields livestock ownership and income, and was
then allocated into one of four groups. The larger landholders
belonged to the upper castes of Kayastha and Sadgop, and were
also the top income groups, while the more numerous and lower
caste Lodha and Maji along with other tribal groups were
smallholders, or landless, were generally found in the bottom two
income groups, which were below the poverty threshold, except in
Chandrapalli, where all households were Lodha. The percentage of
households in the top two income groups in Bokulgram,
Chandrapalli and Rangpur are 37%, 29% and 58% respectively, while
the percentage of households in groups 3 and 4 were 63%, 71% and
42%. Therefore, poverty in Chandrapalli is particularly prominent,
while Rangpur has the largest proportion of top income groups.

Table 2shows the number of households in each village,
and the participation rates in WBSFP. It can be seen that
Bokulgram demonstrated the highest participation rate with 70%,
while Rangpur was a lower 49%, but the lowest was Chandrapalli,
with only 29% participation. Table 3shows the number of
total households and participant households in each income group.
In Bokulgram, participation is fairly evenly distributed across
income groups, in Rangpur, it is found concentrated in the top
two groups, and declines along income groups, while the reverse
can be seen in Chandrapalli, with most participation amongst the
bottom two groups.

Table 2: Number of Households in Each
Village and Participation Rates in the Social Forestry Scheme (Nesmith,
1991)

Nesmith explains that several factors affect participation
rates. In Bokulgram, good access to land, and effective extension
from forest officers and locals is thought to contribute to
similar participation rates across income groups. In Rangpur,
however, social marginalisation manifests itself in a physical
separation of low caste households on the periphery of the
village, which has affected potential opportunities to
participate. The local motivator who was responsible for
extension (the local teacher) did not visit the low caste block,
and by the time these villagers heard about the scheme, the
seedling quota was exhausted. This also reflects the policy of
the forest department where an influential villager, usually
affluent, is the first contact with the village. Other factors
were lack of suitable dahi land; lateritic soil that is less
suitable for rice cultivation, which was the most significant
reason non-participants gave for not planting trees, and which is
generally indicative, as Nesmith comments, of the projects
bias against the poor and landless.

Table 3: Number of Total Households and
Participant Households in Each Income Group (Nesmith, 1991)

Gender bias is also evident, in that there is a male hedgemony
of power within the village structure, reflecting the norm in
institutions generally. Therefore invariably extension workers
are male villagers, as are forest officers. Benefits from social
forestry then, are unlikely to be shared equitably amongst the
villagers, when access to resources are determined by ownership
and social relations, which are mediated by class and gender.

However, the establishment of Eucalyptus groves was
estimated to have reduced the collection of fuel from six to
eight hours, down to two. This gave women, the major fuel
collectors, the opportunity to undertake paid employment.
Nevertheless, again, there was differential access to groves
across villages. Bokulgram operated an equitable grove, where
women who had planted trees, and those that had not, were allowed
to access. Rangpur, meanwhile, where social stratification is
marked, planting of Eucalyptus had been undertaken by the
higher caste families, (discussed earlier), who placed exclusions
on access regarding the low caste families on the periphery of
the village. In this way, women excluded from the Eucalyptus
groves tend to be the poorest, most marginal, and most in need of
the resources available through social forestry. Indeed these are
also the very groups that the World Bank was attempting to target.
Nesmith successfully shows how economic inequalities are
reinforced and accentuated in the implementation of social
forestry.

The cases, although not extensive, do nonetheless highlight
important features of social forestry; and also the difficulties
involved in implementing such a scheme on the ground,
particularly given marked social stratification. Both the cases
discussed clearly show that the primary beneficiaries of social
forestry are those groups of influence within their own
communities, which is as much down to the short comings of the
project design, (Nesmith, 1991), as it is to the general problems
around social and economic marginalisation. The beneficiaries may
not necessarily be in need of assistance to access biomass
resources for subsistence. Indeed, there appears to be a clear
indication that, as a matter of policy, the incorporation of
farm forestry under the remit of social forestry
gives clear provision for producing Eucalyptus for the
market.

Of course, there is nothing intrinsically illegitimate in
producing Eucalyptus for the market; an additional cash
crop produced on agricultural land, with government subsidies, is
a creative solution to timber shortages in the market, but has
led to much criticism from environmentalists and NGOs, that
the real beneficiaries of social forestry have been
wealthy farmers, (CSE, 1985) and industry (Alvares, 1983), while
genuine subsistence needs have been sidelined (Devi, 1983). The
production of Eucalyptus on farm land is most usually to supply
industries, particularly the burgeoning paper industry with pulp.
Eucalyptus, as a quick growing soft wood is an ideal raw material
to be used as pulp; particularly as the optimum age for prime
pulping is about six to eight years. As Eucalyptus ages,
it is generally used for poles. Therefore Eucalyptus is a
lucrative cash crop for a commercial farmer, which can, in theory,
maintain a high turnover.

In some parts of India, however, the large-scale planting of Eucalyptus,
under the augur of social forestry has caused widespread
resentment, amongst communities that perceive their needs are
being subverted to those of industry. In Karnataka, the
implementation of social forestry has involved the removal of
mixed indigenous forest, with the replacement of Eucalyptus
monoculture (Chandrashekhar et al, 1987). Since the early 1960s
there has been an intensive demand on the forests of south India
for timber and pulp, which led to the formation of the Karnataka
Forest Plantations Corporation in 1972, to produce wood for
industry. By 1986, Eucalyptus plantations over 112,748
acres had been established. However, under social forestry,
another 370,330 acres, almost wholly Eucalyptus
plantations were raised on government lands  forests,
pasture land and open areas suitable for cultivation. Therefore,
by the mid 1980s, Eucalyptus monoculture of nearly
half a million hectares had been established. As Chandrashekhar
notes, the agriculture commission did not envisage social
forestry as a means to meet the large-scale wood demands of
industry, nor was there an explicit mention of Eucalyptus as
a species to be particularly encouraged in social forestry. Yet
the end products of social forestry are invariably
sold to the paper, rayon and viscose factories. In Bangalore
district, the entire production of Eucalyptus, while in Kolar
district, 97% of the production was sold as raw materials to a
factory, Harihar Polyfibres.

Local people have shown mounting concern over the diversion of
good agricultural, food producing land, to Eucalyptus
plantations and a concurrent decline of areas traditionally used
for pasture, for the same. The area under the traditional staple,
ragi, has declined significantly in Karnataka. In the Kolar
district, mentioned earlier, between 1977 and 1981, ragi
cultivation dropped from 142,000 ha, to 48,000 ha producing a
marked reduction in yield from 175,000 tonnes to just 13,000 and
increasing its price by 200% in the market (BES, 1984). Although
a drought may also have been implicated, (Prabhakar, 1998), real
fears over food security for local communities have been
expressed, from grassroots and environmentalists alike. Moreover,
under farm forestry, the Karnataka government planned to bring
under plantation, for industry, 45,000 ha of so-called C
and D classified land, considered as degraded forest,
but also traditional grazing grounds. The Wastelands
Development Project, was another scheme where 2.5 Mha were
planned to be brought under Eucalyptus.

However, it was the attempted state appropriation of 75,000
acres of common, cultivated, and occupied land, designated as
C and D for Eucalyptus to
Karnataka Pulpwood Limited, a private and government initiative,
that ignited widespread protest. In an irony of peoples
participation, social forestry has been
implemented with the coercion of the people by the police force,
attempting to evict dwellings and claim cultivated land (Chandrashekhar
et al, 1987). The social forestry situation in Karnataka has
drawn criticism from indigenous and international organisations,
for the narrow choice of species, to the overall lack of focus
and direction to meet the forestry needs of the rural and semi-urban
poor. There seems to be confusion over the remit of afforestation
and social forestry here.

Social forestry, while inadvertently successful in meeting the
needs of industry, appears to fall short of providing for
subsistence needs, particularly regarding the marginal groups the
scheme was supposed to target. The shortcomings can be attributed
to the design of the scheme, and exacerbated by marked social
stratification in the communities where social forestry has been
attempted.

Setting aside some of the problems highlighted here, regarding
the implementation of social forestry, can Eucalyptus
fulfil biomass needs of the rural poor, given the diverse role of
an indigenous, mixed forest in the rural economy? Many
commentators have contributed to this particular debate, which
has become rather polarised between an environmental lobby,
such as Shiva, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), and the
writers and environmentalists, Gadgil and Guha, and a plantation
lobby, comprising of foresters, policy makers, and industry.

Foresters have put forward the view that plantations in
general reduce pressure on indigenous forests, and are critical
in meeting increasing biomass needs. However, in practise, as
discussed earlier here, unproductive indigenous
forests have been clearfelled, to make way for productive
monoculture plantations of exotics, usually Eucalyptus, rendering
this supposition rather dubious. In the case of Karnataka, the
large-scale appropriation by the state of common land, on which
plantations of Eucalyptus were raised for industry would
have had an adverse impact on local communities; the effect of
shrinking commons would only serve to increase pressure on
remaining lands. However, in Karnataka, there was a fundamental
lack of consideration of rural communities.

The environmental lobby has highlighted the shortcomings of
Eucalyptus as a useful contribution to the rural economy.
Regarding the potential of the species, Shiva et al (1982),
points out that many indigenous trees, and particularly those
cultivated around the homestead, and protected on the village
lots are multi-purpose trees. Neem (Melia azadirachta) for
instance, is used as medicine, and for oil, pesticide, food, and
firewood. Similarly, in south India, honge (Pongamiya glabra)
is useful for oil, firewood, and is a popular source of fodder
for cattle. Eucalyptus is limited in its scope as a
resource; its allelopathic properties deter browsers, indeed, it
is promoted as a species that can withstand planting in areas of
high cattle densities, precisely because it is unpalatable. Eucalyptus
cannot be used as a medicine, and it does not bear edible fruit.
The only potential minor produce from this exotic species, would
be its oil, yet as Prabhakar (1998) points out, the leaves of E.
tereticornis does not bear cineole in sufficient quantity for
commercial production.

The only relevant use for Eucalyptus in a rural
subsistence economy, consistent with the original aims of social
forestry, is for the provision of fuelwood and timber. Yet when
the broader economics of Eucalyptus is considered, its use
as a fuel may not be viable. Shiva et al (1982), make the
pertinent point that Eucalyptus fetches too high a price
on the market, reflecting its worth to industry, for it to be
economic as subsistence firewood and therefore alternatives are
always sought. Nevertheless, in some instances, the collective
management and sale of Eucalyptus by rural communities, as
an income generating venture may be possible. When this candidate
was recently in India, researching joint forest management, I
encountered villages managing small woodlots of Eucalyptus
and Acacia. One particular community, Chaatipur, in the
Ranpur district of Orissa, was by all accounts very satisfied
with their 7 ha plantation. (See the back page for a photograph).
Although established by the forest department on part of their
village commons, it was effectively given over to the village
when the trees were about six years old. The plantation provides
surplus fuelwood for the village needs. Management involves
thinning every year, and the harvesting of coupes every few years,
of which the proceeds from the sale are shared amongst the
villagers, and into the village council purse. Chaatipur is a
small and fairly homogenous village, with a history of collective
management, and as such, a village plantation seems to work. As
discussed earlier, in other villages, where social stratification
is marked, there will in all likelihood, be an inequitable
arrangement.

The large-scale establishment of Eucalyptus can impact
the rural economy in a multitude of ways, not always apparent at
the outset. A reduction of fodder provision may occur (Shah and
Weir, 1987), which can result in a potential loss of fertility
for agriculture, and a potential loss of material for biogas
systems. If established on good agricultural land, local food
security may be compromised, which may result in a double loss to
the rural poor; not only is local production reduced, but prices
increase, and employment opportunities may be curtailed. A
fundamental question also arises, in that areas under Eucalyptus
might better serve rural communities needs if under mixed
species, rather than monoculture. Prabhakar (1998) advises that
pure plantations on a large-scale must be avoided and
recommends inter-planting with fruit and fodder trees,
effectively hedgebetting.

The usefulness of Eucalyptus, then, is questionable,
given its limited scope in a rural economy, and once the wider
implications of its impact are considered. However, in some
circumstances, small village managed plantations of exotics, may
prove a viable income generating opportunity. The large-scale
implementation of Eucalyptus, though is ultimately linked
to a certain development trajectory, and as such represents a
particular way of thinking which will be briefly discussed.

Despite some dubious scientific claims about Eucalyptus,
Shiva and Bandyopadhyay (1985) nonetheless make some interesting
points about the politics of exotics in general and Eucalyptus
in particular. Shiva comments quite rightly: the tree
species which get planted and the land on which it is planted
determine to a large extent which groups accrue the benefits.

The overwhelming drive for Eucalyptus, at the
encouragement of the forest department, and sometimes as the only
species on offer, has been interpreted in different ways. Shiva
and Bandyopadhyay (1985), comment that the social forestry
programmes which emphasise the use of Eucalyptus implicitly
accept the impossibility of community participation. Eucalyptus,
therefore, is a tree which polices itself from the incapacity of
communities to manage their own resources; non-browsable,
resilient, an allelopathic alien, self-dependent. The favoured
choice amongst large landholders, particularly absentee
landholders, where individuals, and not communities are
responsible for plantations. A safe choice to leave unattended.

Eucalyptus, promoted by the forest department, is the
species the policy makers think rural communities need, for the
common good. Representative of the I manage, you
participate brand of rural development (Chambers et al,
1989). For usufruct. For economic upliftment.

Eucalyptus, the principal colonial tree (Sargent, 1998),
is now the favoured choice of international financial
institutions, such as the World Bank, and donor organisations. A
quick fix solution. A symbol of development and a symbol of aid.
Of trickle down and top-down, a neo-colonial vision.

Social forestry has largely not fulfilled its remit. The
narrow provision of species, illustrated by the overwhelming
drive for Eucalyptus, has overlooked economic, social and
ecological factors. Eucalyptus, as an exotic, is
intrinsically unable to provide for the diverse range of goods
and services a mixed, indigenous forest can ordinarily provide.
As such, it cannot fulfil subsistence demands, but some
communities may have income generating opportunities from
plantations. More usually though, social and economic
inequalities may result in the distribution of any benefits from Eucalyptus
inequitably, and exacerbating processes of marginalisation
amongst more vulnerable groups (those the scheme were supposed to
target). Social forestry has achieved enormous success at
supplying industry with raw materials.

Almost twenty years on from the large-scale afforestation
drive, and social forestry does not seem to be sustaining
interest in the local communities it was designed to serve. In
Orissa, following a yield study in 1993 of mainly Eucalyptus
plantations over 40,000 ha established between 1984-88, it was
found that an average of 40% of the plantation areas sampled were
non-productive, and had to be reclassified (ISO/Swedforest,
1993). In the neighbouring state of Bihar, meanwhile, tribal
communities, the most marginalised of groups, and arguably the
most dependent on forests, have protested at the large-scale
establishment of Eucalyptus, initiated, after all, for
social benefit (Sargent, 1998). Even in the
prosperous green revolution belt of the northwest, the
unprecedented uptake of Eucalyptus amongst farmers led to
a flood of poles and pulp material on the market, and a price
crash occurred. Farmers had also anticipated greater gains, and
smaller costs, from cultivating this exotic, while the trees were
not always good quality, and did not grow into perfectly straight
boles, which commanded higher prices. For these reasons, the
commercial interest in Eucalyptus plummeted, and according
to Saxena (1994), no farmers in Uttar Pradesh undertook
replacement planting on their land but many removed the coppiced
roots and resumed the cultivation of annual crops.

Many of the scientific claims made by Shiva et al against the
exotic do not stand. As discussed here, the perceived
environmental impacts of Eucalyptus owe more to the role
of human agency, than any intrinsic property of the genus.
However, Eucalyptus appears to be a wholly unsuitable
species for large-scale planting under the remit of social
forestry, on social and political grounds.

BES: Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Bangalore, (1984):
A short review report on the impact of social forestry
programme on land use in Kolar and Bangalore district.

Campbell, JY, Smith, DM, (1987): The effects of
short-rotation monocultures of Eucalyptus on rural ecosystems of
India, with particular reference to E. tereticornis
plantations in social forestry. Report to the World Bank,
Washington.